Justice Scalia to retire

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cancel4
  • Start date Start date
flaja said:
Yes they do- it says so in the Constitution- a documents you should read sometime.

U.S. Constitution
Article III
Section 2:

…In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make…”
Click to expand...

perhaps you should read it sometime, because nowhere in that little blurb you copied and pasted has the word 'interpret' in it.

fyi, there are very few on here that know the constitution better than I, you are not one of them.
 
Yes lets clear this up once and for all, I'm not a fucking retard. When you give someone a billion rep points, they are going to have fun with it. I gave them rep points, I knew they were going to down mod the shit out of people, and I thought it was awesome. I have zero regrets, because it's an arbitrary number online. As such, it's possible I will do it again in the future. Anyone that invests any other type of importance into such things is a LOSER.
 
∞zo;471420 said:
Yes lets clear this up once and for all, I'm not a fucking retard. When you give someone a billion rep points, they are going to have fun with it. I gave them rep points, I knew they were going to down mod the shit out of people, and I thought it was awesome. I have zero regrets, because it's an arbitrary number online. As such, it's possible I will do it again in the future. Anyone that invests any other type of importance into such things is a LOSER.
Click to expand...

Calm down there Grind, it was just a discussion; and I thought it was funny.
 
DNC said:
He's 73. By the end of President Obama's second term, he'll be 81.

Roberts is 54, Alito is 59 and Thomas 61, so unless "something" happens they may make it a few more years.

Congress has the right to impeach a Supreme Court Justice.

Impeachment is a two-step process; articles of impeachment are presented and the House of Representatives passes them by a simple majority, the Justice is "impeached," and proceeds to trial in the Senate.

The Senate trial determines whether a Justice (or other officeholder) should be removed from office on the basis of the evidence presented at impeachment.

The Senate needs a 2/3 super majority for conviction. We're nearly there!
Click to expand...

Nice dream....but first you have to have a viable cause to try and initiate the proceedings....bluedog dems along with the remnants of the neocon GOP will lock against that. :(

Scalia will leave due to age related medical reasons, most likely. And if that happens during Obama's term, all hell is going to break loose in the vetting process for his replacement.
 
Ice Dancer said:
Calm down there Grind, it was just a discussion; and I thought it was funny.
Click to expand...

i am calm sweetie. I'mma gonna be stating all the facts, keeping ya'll on the right tracks, it might feel like you are stepping on tacks, but i gotta getcha off some peoples backs.

respect
 
∞zo;471439 said:
i am calm sweetie. I'mma gonna be stating all the facts, keeping ya'll on the right tracks, it might feel like you are stepping on tacks, but i gotta getcha off some peoples backs.

respect
Click to expand...

goofy :p
 
Annie said:
judicial review is not the same as original jurisdiction, that's not what you are trying to say?
Click to expand...

Original jurisdiction simply means the court where a case is first tried. There are certain cases within federal jurisdiction that automatically go to the Supreme Court and that Court conducts the only trial involved with these cases. A court has appellate jurisdiction when it can review (and overturn) the decisions of other courts. In its appellate jurisdiction the Supreme Court can judge both the facts involved in a case and what the law pertaining to the case means.
 
DNC said:
He's 73. By the end of President Obama's second term, he'll be 81.

Roberts is 54, Alito is 59 and Thomas 61, so unless "something" happens they may make it a few more years.

Congress has the right to impeach a Supreme Court Justice.

Impeachment is a two-step process; articles of impeachment are presented and the House of Representatives passes them by a simple majority, the Justice is "impeached," and proceeds to trial in the Senate.

The Senate trial determines whether a Justice (or other officeholder) should be removed from office on the basis of the evidence presented at impeachment.

The Senate needs a 2/3 super majority for conviction. We're nearly there!
Click to expand...



this totally has to be canadian kid.
 
Southern Man, do you ever shut the fuck up? Its not important. Hell, when the rep point thing started, Superfreak got neg repped by all of the liberals on the board so that he had less than -1000 points, but rather than bitch about it, he claimed it as a badge of honor in the ideological struggle, and patiently waited to be repped back into positive range, and he has remained there ever since.
 
Threedee said:
Southern Man, do you ever shut the fuck up? Its not important. Hell, when the rep point thing started, Superfreak got neg repped by all of the liberals on the board so that he had less than -1000 points, but rather than bitch about it, he claimed it as a badge of honor in the ideological struggle, and patiently waited to be repped back into positive range, and he has remained there ever since.
Click to expand...

um actually i think that was me too O_O

but he asked me too.
 
Good Luck said:
Wrong. It is not the Constitution which judges are supposed to interpret, but rather whether a particular law, regulation, or governmental action violates constitutional protections.
Click to expand...

Just how does a court do this if it does not also interpret the meaning of the Constitution? How would a court know that drawing and quartering traitors violates the Constitution’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment if the court doesn’t interpret what the Constitution means by cruel and unusual punishment?

How does the Supreme Court know that government-mandated prayer in public schools or a cross displayed in a government building violates the Constitution’s establishment clause if the Court cannot tell us what the establishment clause means?

How does the Supreme Court know what businesses can be regulated by the Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce if the Supreme Court cannot tell us what the Constitution means by interstate commerce (Carter v. Cutler Coal Company ruling that shipping something mined in one state to another state is not interstate commerce; Schechter Poultry Company v. The United States ruling that a company can be too small to engage in interstate commerce or Unites States v. Darby Lumber Company ruling that the federal government can regulate labor practices as interstate/international commerce even if the products of the labor do not leave the state where they are produced)?

How does the Supreme Court know when a law or government action violates the Constitution if the Supreme Court cannot tell us what the Constitution means?

And if the Supreme Court has no power of judicial review and thus cannot interpret the Constitution, why didn’t Madison or any of the other Founding Fathers object when the Court issued its Marbury decision? If the Founding Fathers had no intention of letting the federal courts interpret the Constitution, why did they write a constitution that is so vague in so many places?
 
flaja said:
Original jurisdiction simply means the court where a case is first tried. There are certain cases within federal jurisdiction that automatically go to the Supreme Court and that Court conducts the only trial involved with these cases. A court has appellate jurisdiction when it can review (and overturn) the decisions of other courts. In its appellate jurisdiction the Supreme Court can judge both the facts involved in a case and what the law pertaining to the case means.
Click to expand...

No shit sherlock, my original point. You were the one to cite Art. III, like there was something there about 'interpretation.' So WTF were you meaning with what you posted?
 
Threedee said:
Southern Man, do you ever shut the fuck up? Its not important. Hell, when the rep point thing started, Superfreak got neg repped by all of the liberals on the board so that he had less than -1000 points, but rather than bitch about it, he claimed it as a badge of honor in the ideological struggle, and patiently waited to be repped back into positive range, and he has remained there ever since.
Click to expand...
It is a clear demonstration of liberal fascism. *shrug*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top